Saturday, July 30, 2011

I was very unsatisfied with the end of the book. I know that the ending was written to make a statement to the audience, but for God’s sake, is it so much to ask for a solid and definite ending? The way it ends, the entire family could starve to death within a week (Steinbeck 372). If they had all drowned to death or starved that would at least be something. Sad and horrible, yes, but at least it would be definite. At the least it could end with some small hope for the family, like a plan to get some steady work. That would be less morbid and good enough for me. Instead, the author leaves a completely open ending, and leaves me to worry about the entire darn family. It is really not fair.

Another thing that bothered me about the book was the themes. Do not misunderstand me, the book was very well written, and the themes are presented wonderfully. I just find those themes to be evil. Sure, people being together and sharing what they have is a wonderful thing, but I am a good deal hung up on the “one big soul” thing (Steinbeck 22). If a person’s soul does not belong solely to them, then that means everyone else has a claim on that person’s very soul. Can you imagine anything more horrendously evil? I believe it is a good thing for people to help each other, but I do not think it is a good idea for people to believe that other people have a claim on whatever it is they may have. In fact, I think it is horrible in the worst way.

I thought the characters were very believable, if not too realistic. How something can be believable and not realistic is beyond me, but that is how I feel about it. Maybe it is because the situations the characters were in were real, and because of that I felt sympathy for characters I did not really believe before.

Al is one of the most important characters in the book because he drives the family all of the way to California, and then around in the state. His family would have had no way to go out in search for work around the state without him. Besides that, he has a rather interesting character as well, including a respect for his brother, and love of girls in general.

When Al come back from his skirt chasing and sees his brother, the first thing he does is mimic his brother’s attitude (Steinbeck 75). He does not even realize it, but because he has so much respect for his older brother he tries to act like him as much as possible. Whenever something goes wrong with the car, he wants to make sure very much that Tom does not think it is his fault, like when the Wilson’s car breaks down on the way to California (Steinbeck 143).

When Al comes home before the family leaves for California, he had come back from chasing girls, and his father says that he is quite the lady’s man (Steinbeck 73). That makes sense, because the first thing he does at the dance in the government camp is flirting with a girl (Steinbeck 279). He has serious thought about the girl too, because when he leaves he promises to come back for her (Steinbeck 295). Maybe he is just saying that because he wants to believe it, and maybe he is saying it because he wants to make the girl happy. Either way, he said he would marry her. Later, when he makes a real decision to get married, he refuses to leave his fiancé, unlike with the first girl (Steinbeck 358). He mush genuinely care about Aggie, or else he would not be willing to leave his family.

Al respects his brother and loves women. He is an interesting character, and an important one as well. Because of him, the family has someone to take care of the car and another person to help look for work.

One of the most important morals of the story is to value and hold on to your family. Without family, who would help take care of you and help you hold on when times get rough? This family does all that they can do to stay together, even though sometimes it is not enough.

When Tom gets out of prison, he goes straight back to his family farm (Steinbeck 8). He had no job, and his prospects did not look very good, as he had just gotten out of prison for killing a man. There is not much he really could have done if he had not had his family to go back to. When he finds them, he goes out to California with them to find jobs together.

When the family members start walking off, honestly, I was a little relieved. My thought process went a little like: Now they have one less person to worry about feeding. Then I started thinking about it a little bit more. How would I feel if my little sister walked off in a strange place, all alone? I instantly felt sad and worried, and understood what the Joad family must have felt when shortly after leaving four family members died or walked out on them.

When Tom get in trouble for killing another guy, his family hides him until they can all leave (Steinbeck 330). If it had not been for his family, Tom would have been caught the very next morning. Furthermore, if they had not brought food to him while he was hiding, he may have starved to death (Steinbeck 333). His family does their very best to take care of him, and because of it he keeps his life.

Most of the time, I take my family for granted because they are always there. Reading about this family and the struggles they went through, I started to appreciate how much my family means to me, and how awful my life would be if I did not have them to listen to me and help me when I need it.

This book had the most depressing tone of any book I have ever read, ever. Have I already blogged about that? If so, the tone is so miserable that it deserves two blogs. Maybe the tone is not entirely to blame, as the events in the novel are bad enough to make one treasure their family to the end of their life. However, a bad outlook always makes thing look worse.

The book even starts with rather depressing language. It talks of the slow yet violent destruction of the land people needed to survive. Passages such as the following are representative of the entire book’s style when narrating: “Little by little the sky was darkened by the mixing dust, and the wind felt over the earth, loosened the dust, and carried it away. The wind grew stronger. The rain crust broke and the dust lifted up out of the fields and drove gray plumes into the air like sluggish smoke (Steinbeck 3).” It is dry and cold. It sounds like someone it simply explaining that the land was blowing away, but that someone had was somehow able to express the people’s pain as well. It is not a happy thing to read. Every time the author narrates the state of the whole region, he uses the same style.

When the characters talk, the author uses the dialect people from that region used. It makes the characters seem more realistic and personal because it is not narrated in any sort of dialect. Because of this, when bad things happen to the characters, the reader actually feels bad for them.

The style of this book is most of what made it so memorable and effective. If the reader had not felt the sympathy the author was trying to make the reader feel, his point about how the workers were exploited would not have made any difference. I guess it was important that the style be so utterly depressing, but I can not say that I enjoyed it.

This book had the most depressing tone of any book I have ever read, ever. Have I already blogged about that? If so, the tone is so miserable that it deserves two blogs. Maybe the tone is not entirely to blame, as the events in the novel are bad enough to make one treasure their family to the end of their life. However, a bad outlook always makes thing look worse.

The book even starts with rather depressing language. It talks of the slow yet violent destruction of the land people needed to survive. Passages such as the following are representative of the entire book’s style when narrating: “Little by little the sky was darkened by the mixing dust, and the wind felt over the earth, loosened the dust, and carried it away. The wind grew stronger. The rain crust broke and the dust lifted up out of the fields and drove gray plumes into the air like sluggish smoke (Steinbeck 3).” It is dry and cold. It sounds like someone it simply explaining that the land was blowing away, but that someone had was somehow able to express the people’s pain as well. It is not a happy thing to read. Every time the author narrates the state of the whole region, he uses the same style.

When the characters talk, the author uses the dialect people from that region used. It makes the characters seem more realistic and personal because it is not narrated in any sort of dialect. Because of this, when bad things happen to the characters, the reader actually feels bad for them.

The style of this book is most of what made it so memorable and effective. If the reader had not felt the sympathy the author was trying to make the reader feel, his point about how the workers were exploited would not have made any difference. I guess it was important that the style be so utterly depressing, but I can not say that I enjoyed it.

The themes of this book are very upsetting to me especially about police and businesses and poverty. There are many of them in this book that I vehemently disagree with. I understand that the situation the farmers were put in was extremely difficult, and in times like that many people turn their outrage on the nearest thing available to blame.

The farmers blame the banks for taking possession of what they sold by taking loans they could not pay (Steinbeck 28). Perhaps they had little choice in the matter, but even so, it is not fair to be angry at something the bank did after they asked for it. It is bad form.

Another thing that bothered me was the way they talked about the corrupt police in California. This book is not just about California, but about all of country and capitalism in general. There is a broad, concrete line between capitalism and corruption, and the police in the story cross it. This book has a really anti-capitalistic feel to it, mostly because it villainesses businesses and other institutions. I think associating capitalism and corruption like that is not very responsible, and done in bad taste.

The way the author writes about poverty makes me think that it must be horrible. However, poverty is a passive state, it happens because a person has done nothing to stop it. Wealth is requires a person to do something to reach it. The people knew that their land was poor and would not grow well for much longer. They should have learned to do something new to prevent their poverty, or they should not complain when it happens. Even after they learned California was hopeless, they could have tried some different employment.

What really bothers me about this book is how everything is about the collective and how good it is. Honestly, the thought frightens and sickens me. People are important on their own, without the justification of helping others. People do not need justifying.

I think that the author believes there are responsibilities between all people, no matter how much money they do or do not have. I also believe that the author was influenced by the communist ideas of Karl Marx, indirectly if not directly.

When the family is looking for work out west, the book talks about how the big farms managed to shut down the little farms and bring in so many workers that they could pay them scandalously little (Steinbeck 237-238). The author says sarcastically that it is a good thing, and later says that the anger the big farmers are causing will be their destruction. It does not really matter if you make people angry, as long as they do not consider it an injustice. However, the workers do see it as an injustice because they think the farmers are responsible for them. For example, workers compare how the farmers treat them to how the farmers would treat one of their horses (Steinbeck 296). They compare themselves to things the farmers own and are responsible for, implying that they think the farmers are responsible for them. But, in my opinion, no one can be responsible for another person. People are only responsible for themselves and their children, should they have them.

I found many of the ideas in the book to be strongly leaning toward communism, just saying. The idea of a collective soul has me really freaked out, especially because it is presented as a noble truth (Steinbeck 22). Communism preaches and raves about the collective and the common good. The characters also wish they could form a union, and unions stand for collective bargaining, yes, another collective. Tom even speculates that he may kill people to start a union (Steinbeck 345). Do I need to point out how wrong that is? Though the author may not know it, but most likely he does, he was certainly influenced by that ideology which kills the individual.

Steinbeck uses the characters to draw readers into the story and keep them interested. He also uses suspense, because it was only a matter of time before Tom lost his temper and got in trouble.

The members of the family are trying to stay together and help the people around them, which is a really difficult task. When they see a car broken down on the side of the road, they help fix it while they are camping (Steinbeck 121). When the family gets to a Hooverville, and starving children gather around their dinner, even though they do not have enough they still share (Steinbeck 217). Because the family is always trying to help people and do the right thing, the reader wants them to do well too. The reader starts rooting for the family to find work and stick it out because they are such nice people, and once you start rooting for something, it is difficult to leave before you know how it ends. It is like leaving in the middle of a baseball game, you just do not do it.

All of the time in the novel Tom is on the verge of doing something that would get his self in trouble. When a cop tries to arrest one of his new friends for no particular reason, Tom trips a cop to let his friend get away (Steinbeck 223). At that point, if Casy had not stepped in and taken the blame for it, Tom would have gone back to jail. It was only a matter of time until someone else did something mean and senseless. The reader is just waiting and hoping that the thing does not happen, but it does.

Between the suspense and the characters, the reader is completely hooked. Everyone wants nice good people to do well, except maybe mean nasty people, but I do not think there are very many of those. Even if a person does not like sad depressing books, it is still a compelling thing to read.

I think what is timeless about this book is that it does not just deal with people in a certain place, but with ideas as well. It relates ideas about society and economics and even government to a small extent, and those things are always present in daily life, no matter how desperately I try to escape them. The ideas are important not only because they make the story relatable, but also because they make it interesting.

The ideas about society in this book seem pretty strange to me, but at the same time others sound nice. The part about everyone having only a piece of a bigger soul sounds very wrong to me somehow. Maybe it is because I value my individualism above all things. Call me crazy, but I want my soul to be strictly mine. The parts where it talks about people working and living together sound pretty good to me though. I think that because these ideas are in the book, it gives people like me something to think about that is bigger than just the characters and what they are doing, which makes the book a lot more interesting. The thoughts it provokes about even religious thing are pretty deep too.

The way it talks about unions also has me thinking. Unions sound like a really good thing for the migrants, but then there are also laws of economics like supply and demand to think about. Questions and debates about these things are important, and despite the story’s age, still relevant today. The fact that the book raises questions about things that are still relevant long after the time it was written is the reason the book is so timeless. Why read a book that is squarely set in the past, with no connection to the present what so ever? Well, maybe the hypothetical book is entertaining, but that is beside the point. The Grapes of Wrath is interesting and timeless because it has connections with present life.

This story reflects on the depravity (that is a really good word) of California during the great depression. It points out how the poor workers were exploited and under paid for their work. It exposes greed and selfishness and all kinds of things the average American would not like to believe possible in their own country. Before going into the elaboration, I need to remind that no country is perfect.

Before reading this book, I never knew that anything close to this happened during the great depression. Migrants from the area affected by the dust bowl moved to California to find work in huge numbers (Steinbeck 198). I never would have realized just how many of them there were unless this book had stated it so dramatically either. The parts of the story that tell about the entire region are really gripping and help gage how widespread the problems were.

I also learned that the migrant workers were treated very unfairly in California, where they were looking for a fresh start. Apparently, huge numbers of workers were brought in, only to be given few jobs at meager pay (Steinbeck 163). And apparently, that was the plan the big farmers had from the start. I know this is going to sound a bit silly, but that is just a mean thing to do. What compels a person to do something so cruel and heartless? I never would have known a thing about it either if I had not read this book. Why do they feel the need to starve people to make a few extra bucks? It just does not make sense to me.

I am always sorry to learn about something bad happening in my country’s history, especially on such a scale as this. I wonder if the police were really in on it, or if that was just put in to make it more dramatic. One thing is for certain, I really want to know more about the way things were in California at the time, and how they could have been fixed.

In The Grapes of Wrath, Tom is the hero or at least the main character if hero is too lofty a title for him. He does not like to be pushed around, and does a pretty good job at keeping his more aggressive feelings under control. He helps keep the family going, physically and emotionally, and does his best to keep it together.

When a crowd makes the family turn around on its way to the government camp, Tom gets extremely angry and has a hard time controlling his self (Steinbeck 235). He tries to keep himself under control for the sake of his family, so he turns around. Because Tom really hates being told what to do and where to go, he drives down another street until the crowd passes and then continues on his way (Steinbeck 235). He does what he feels is best for his family and avoids a fight at the same time.

When the car breaks down while the family is driving up a mountain, it is Tom who fixes it (Steinbeck 158). Because he manages to fix the car, the family is able to keep moving west instead of being stuck where the car breaks down. Tom tries to make his mother feel better when he has to go away at the end of the book (Steinbeck 344). He tries to explain what he thinks he is going to do and why, and even though she really does not understand it, him trying to make her feel better helps a little bit. When his mother gets tired, talking to Tom makes her feel a bit better even though the situation has not changed at all, like when a cop tells her she and her family have to leave by the next morning, followed by the news that Noah left (Steinbeck 183). Tom helps to support his mother, and his mother supports the rest of the family. He and his mother keep the entire family from completely falling apart.

The author understands an awful lot about human nature, especially how emotions change from one to another with no reason other than time. Another thing he understands is how people will only put up with so much before they try to change things. People do not like being pushed around, and will only take it for so long, after that, they will do what they can to change their situation

The people who lived in California change the way they feel about the immigrants over time. First they pity, then they hate them, and after a while they fear them (Steinbeck 356). Eventually people get tired of feeling pity, because it is a sad and depressing emotion. Furthermore, if something pitiful is around long enough and a person continues to do nothing, then they get angry at themselves for not doing the right thing. That person turns that anger on the pitiful thing because it is easier to hate someone else for not helping themselves than to do the right thing and help, even if that person is unable to help themselves.

Another thing the author realizes about human nature is that people will only take a beating for so long. It says at one part “the fear went from their faces, and anger took its place” (Steinbeck 357). Eventually, people will do anything to get themselves free of what they feel is holding them down. The men get angry about what is going on, and emotion always leads to action of some kind, even if it is just resolving to do something.

Because the Californians understand that people will not put up with starvation forever, they begin to fear the immigrants (Steinbeck 356). They know that after a while, resolving to try harder to find work or try to steal something small will not be enough. They know that eventually the Okies will try something bigger and more drastic. People often fear change, so the Californians feared the Okies.

The losses during the conflict are huge and numerous. A home is lost, family members die or run away, and all of the time everyone is on the brink of starvation.

To start with, the family loses its farm (Steinbeck 62). It loses more than just a place to live, but also the place where their parents lived and their children were born. That is a hard thing for a family to go through, even without the added stress of worrying where they are going to go.

Very soon after leaving, at the end of their first day in fact, the grandfather dies of a stroke (Steinbeck 120). The family not only loses its home, but also the head of their family in the same day. He may not have been the one to really make the decisions, but he was the one who held the final word on family decisions. Shortly after, their grandmother loses her mind and dies in California (Steinbeck 194). The last death in the book is Rose of Sharon’s baby (Steinbeck 365). It is really sad that after worrying so much about her baby and trying hard to make sure it was healthy it did not survive.

As soon as they arrive in California members of the family start leaving. Noah leaves before the family tries to drive across a desert (Steinbeck 178). Connie leaves only a little after arriving in the part of California the family is going to work in (Steinbeck 229). The family loses two of its members by them simply walking away almost as soon as they get there. Later, Tom has to leave because he kills another man (Steinbeck 343). Tom is one of the strongest members of the family, and when he has to go away the family is losing one of the few people that hold it together.

During the story, the family loses so many people. It is truly depressing to read about a family being torn apart, and the conflict is mostly loss throughout the entire book.

During the book, there are complicated causes, few gains, and many difficult losses in the conflict. Causes include greedy rich people and poor land, gains are hard to think of off the top of my head, and the losses are too many to begin naming. It makes me wonder how the family managed not to give up.

The start of the Joad family’s fight for survival is when the bank kicks them off of their land. Their land has become poor with drought. They can not grow anything without water, and after a while the soil turns into infertile dust. The bank forces them out so it can farm the lands itself and make more of a profit. They are kicked out of their home and have no work or place to stay (Steinbeck 62). Later, in California, the greedy farmers starve workers to make a bigger profit. They bring in more people to compete for the jobs, and with more people there needing work, more of them will work for less money.

There are very few gains in the book, as the entire story is really pretty depressing. The first thing I think of is that Al found himself a girl that he wants to marry (Steinbeck 348). Even though it would be really hard for them to have a good life in California, at least the two of them have each other, which is something. Another thing gained is Tom’s understanding of people and some aspects of society. When Tom has to hide out, he starts to think about what Casy told him about (Steinbeck 344). Understanding is not much to gain when the entire family is starving, but at least it is something, I guess.

I am not going to get into all of the losses of the conflict, because there are way too many to fit into this blog. Did I mention this book was really extremely depressing, because it was.

From the story, I can tell that the author values family and people’s relationships. I can also tell that the author has a very pro-union attitude.

The entire story is about a family trying to stick together and survive during the Great Depression. If the author did not value family, he would not have made the family trying to stick together such a huge part of the story. The mother does everything she possibly can to keep Tom from leaving, even after he kills someone and has to hide (Steinbeck 330). The family is willing to risk Tom getting caught just so they can have a chance to stay together. When Ruthie tells about Tom and Tom has to leave, the mother still makes Tom promise to come back once people forget about the murder (Steinbeck 345). Staying together is such a big priority for the family that is must be valued by the author that created them.

The author also values other non-family relationships. When the mom and Tom are talking near the end of the book, Tom talks about how Casy thought people just have little pieces of one big soul (Steinbeck 344). That sort of implies that everyone is important to everyone else. After all, sharing a soul is a little personal. I am not a fan of collectivism in any way, but I can tell that the author is because of how he writes about it.

Describing how I know the author has a pro-union attitude is pretty easy. When an author has his main character go off to try starting a union, you can tell that the author thinks unions are very important and a good idea. Tom goes off to try bringing people together when he has to leave his family, and after that the author does not write any more about him (Steinbeck 345). Ending Tom’s part of the story like that, when Tom was pretty much the main character, is pretty significant.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

How in God’s name are people able to answer these questions about The Catcher in the Rye? The book was hardly even about anything. Most of my posts have been rants about how awful I thought the book was. I can not imagine having to stick to writing strictly about the question. I think it may be impossible.

So… the things that influenced the author… perhaps he once knew someone like Holden and thought it would be really neat if he could write an entire novel about someone like that. Then, he wrote an entire novel about someone like Holden. That is about all I can come up with. Maybe the author got really really depressed and thought he would write a book titled “The Adventures of a Self-Deprecating Teenager in New York.” Then, after he decided there really were not any adventures in the book, he renamed it something artistic sounding in the hopes that someone would read I because it sounded deep and meaningful. I know I should be taking this more seriously, but this is the last post I have to write about that God awful book, and it is making me pretty happy. I thought I should get all of the criticism out of my system so I could stop ranting to my family about why they should never read it, because I do not think they ever would have read it anyway. I just really hate books that have no plot and annoying characters. After writing all of this, I am beginning to wonder what everyone else in the class thought of the book. Did they think it was as horrible as I do? If they actually liked it, I think my mind may silently blow up, and no one would ever know.

Now that I am finished, I am going to read my favorite book to get The Catcher in the Rye out of my poor little head. It really was a truly awful book.

Well, I am really not sure what techniques the author used to engage the audience because if he did use any, they were entirely lost on me. As for making the story effective, I had not realized that there was a story. Did I happen to mention that I really hate this book with all the passion of my soul, and that I had to stop myself from tearing it in half several times while reading it? Unfortunately, that last part was not an exaggeration.

If there was any attempt to interest the audience at all, them it must have been in trying to create an interesting character, which was an utter failure in my opinion. The author tried to make Holden a seemingly shallow person, and a really deep person on the inside. While he succeeded in making him deep, he also made him someone I just could not stand. Does anyone really like reading about a person who thinks so lowly of themselves that they feel bad for receiving presents (Salinger 52)? It is just depressing in a huge sort of way. What kind of person writes this kind of book?

As for my other point, there was absolutely no story to be made effective. Holden does not get into any serious trouble, does not meet and fall in love with a beautiful girl, and does not make any huge realizations about his nature. The entire book was Holden telling stories and trying to occupy his time. That is almost like a story about an average trip to the supermarket, only with less excitement. There was absolutely no plot at all, and I can not understand why this book is popular. I would really appreciate it if someone explained it to me. I really would. This book fills me with questions about things I do not and never will understand, so I guess trying to explain it would be pretty pointless. Disregard that last request, because if there is anything I hate, it is something without a point.

Honestly, I have no idea what so ever why people still read this book. I really think I hated it. Maybe some people like it because a truly miserable character like that makes them feel better about themselves and their lives. I do not know. I do think that something important can be learned from the novel, but I think the message is mostly wasted on people who either do not need it or can not change.

Holden is really a miserable person. Something is always making him depressed and sad, no matter what he does. At the beginning he said he hated it when people repeat things, but he repeats things all of the time (Salinger 10). When people do not like something in themselves, they tend to dislike other people that do it too. For instance, I have really deep smile lines. Whenever I smile when I scuba dive, my mask floods because they are so deep. For a long time they really used to bother me, and it really annoyed me when other people had deep smile lines too. The repetitions that Holden hates are really his own, and that is just one more thing that he does not like about himself. When you read about a person that messed up, you almost have to be thankful that your head is at least a little bit more squarely on your shoulders.

What a person can learn from this book is just that they just should not be so hard on themselves. Holden is really terrible to his self, and it makes people realize just how pointless it is, or at least I hope they realize that. I think the message is mostly wasted because people who are not hard on themselves do not need it, and people who are hard on themselves are not going to change their mind because of a book. When people dislike themselves like that, it probably takes something pretty deep for them to realize that they are not bad at all.

This novel points out one very important social issue of the setting, and that is the violence of pimps in New York City. By that I mean that the book pointed out no social issues, and furthermore that it had no theme. I suppose I could sit around and speculate on possible themes, but the more I think about it the more I get frustrated with the book. What in God’s name was I supposed to get out of reading that book? There was no lesson, no moral, and no ideas. I could hardly stand to read the darn book.

I suppose it did reflect some history about New York City during the time. For instance, it must not have been to uncommon people under the legal drinking age to go to bars and clubs and drink a lot. Holden goes to several including one big fancy one called the Wicker Bar. They serve him so many drinks that he gets absolutely drunk (Salinger 149). Today, that kind of thing would probably not happen in a fancy club, at least not without fake identification. I also doubt that a minor would be able to stay at a hotel all by themselves like Holden does (Salinger 61). I do not know the laws about that kind of thing, but I am pretty sure that that sort of thing does not happen.

Other than the looseness of society back then when it came to minors, I do not think this book points out much about history. In fact, I do not think this book points out much of anything. I just cannot get over how totally awful it was. I really want to know why people consider it such a classic, because I cannot even see why anyone in their right mind would even publish it. Maybe my criticism is a little unwanted, but this is my revenge for having to read such a truly horrible book.

Holden is an almost interesting character, even if a very frustrating one. He thinks people that are happy with whatever is popular are phonies, and really dislikes them. He also has that whole self deprecating thing going on. Is just a little bit f a hypocrite too, if you ask me.

He has a real problem with people he thinks are phonies (Salinger 141). Do not ask me what a phonie is, because I could not really tell you. I guess people who only care about what the most popular thing is are frustrating, but they are not bothering anyone. What does it matter if they do not have well thought out opinions, because after all, a person can always just ignore them. And by the way, why in the world does he have a problem with the word “grand” (Salinger 106)? It is just a word. I guess fake people like that used to bother me a lot, and until just recently too, so maybe I do not have much room to talk. Even so, I never really let that feeling get nearly as much of me as he has.

I have already written a lot about how down Holden is on his self, so I think I will move on to the next characteristic.

When Stradlater acts like he had sex with a girl he just met, Holden gets really angry. He basically tells Stradlater that a relationship should be about more than physical things, and should be about the person herself, only, not nearly as articulately (Salinger 44). Then when Holden goes to New York, he makes himself a date with a girl named Sally. He hates her for being a phonie, but he dates he because he likes kissing her (Salinger 105). Is that not a whole lot of hypocritical, as in enough to fill an entire person, especially considering Holden get his face beat for getting so angry at Stradlater. If that was not enough, Holden absolutely hates phonies, but he makes a date with a girl he calls “queen of the phonies” (Salinger 116). That is pretty darn hypocritical if you ask me, but you do not have to ask me because I am telling you anyway.

I think that the author understands something about human nature that I myself have never understood. For some reason, some people just do not think that they are worthy or good enough to be happy and enjoy themselves. They have some sort of complex where they think that everyone else is more deserving of things than they are, and they are miserable because of it.

Whenever Holden has something that is better than what someone else has he gets really depressed. He tells a story about once when his suitcases were better than his roommate’s suitcases, and he even felt like trading with his roommate (Salinger 108). He feels really bad about having something better than what someone else has, so much so that he wants to trade with his roommate.

Another thing I noticed is that some of the only times in the book when he is happy are when he is doing something nice for someone else. He feels really good when he buys his little sister a copy of a record he thinks she would like (Salinger 116). At the end of the book, he get very happy again after he buys his little sister a bunch of tickets for the merry-go-round (Salinger 213). I understand feeling good after doing something nice for someone else, but it seems like the only times when he is happy are the times when he does some good deed. Couple that with how horrible he feels when he has something better that someone else, and you get a pretty good picture of someone who thinks very poorly of themselves.

Another thing that is pretty interesting is that he does not apply his self in school. It almost seems to me that he does not feel worthy of a good education, so he throws it away. I may never understand people like that at all, because when I hear about things like that I can only think that if he worked in school and did well he would have a reason to value his self.

This causes, gains, and losses of the conflict are normally one of the cleanest and simplest things to write about for an essay. The answers are straightforward and definite. The problem with this book is that there is essentially no plot, and no conflict. It drove me mad the entire time I had to take reading the book. If I had to name a conflict in the book, I would say that it was looking for the best way for Holden to waste time until his parents were notified about his expulsion from another school.

I think the cause of the conflict is that Holden got kicked out of school. Because he does not want to tell his parents about it himself and face their wrath, he checks into a hotel and plans on waiting to go home until he is sure they have received the letter informing them of his expulsion. You would think that because he thinks so lowly of his self, he would go tell them himself because he thinks he deserves their anger. Anyway, he goes and hides his shameful self until he feels that most of their anger will have blown over.

The biggest loss in the book is really only all of the money Holden tries to spend entertaining his self. For some reason he cannot stand to be alone, and is always trying to get someone’s company and to entertain them. Maybe it is because he dislikes his self so much he just does not want to be alone with it. Anyway, he spends a good deal of money trying to get people to spend time with him.

I have absolutely no idea what was gained, if anything really was. It is pretty depressing that throughout the entire book nothing at all was gained and nothing important was lost. That really is not much of a story at all because typically in a story, something happens at some point.

I have just sat down to start writing about The Catcher in the Rye, and looking over the questions, I realized exactly how difficult it is going to be to write eight small posts about a book about absolutely nothing. Reading the book was like doing yoga, and I consider yoga the art of painful, slow torture. Absolutely nothing exciting happened over the course of the entire book. It was just a look into a rather annoying and frustrated teenager’s head.

Now I will try very hard to write about the author’s values and attitudes. I noticed that the main character gets really depressed about absolutely everything, especially things that are really no big deal. It gets under my skin really quickly.

Tiny little things make the main character feel truly depressed. For instance, when he is leaving his history teacher’s room, his history teacher tells him good luck (Salinger 15). He says he would never do that, and that it is really a terrible thing to say (Salinger 16). What is his problem? Someone cares about him enough to make sure he knows that they want him to do well, and all he can think about is how depressing it sounds. He talks about how once he had a roommate whose suitcases were not as good as his, and how it depressed him so much (Salinger 108). Why does it matter? Does Holden think so little of himself that the matter of having better suitcases than someone else makes him feel bad? I do not understand people like that at all. I can not understand why he is so hard on himself. I wish he would just enjoy life and stop worrying about silly things like if his things are better than someone else’s things. When he is sitting with some nuns at breakfast and gives them ten dollars, he starts to feel bad that he only gave them ten dollars (Salinger 113). I just do not understand what his problem is with himself.

Maybe this is a little strange of me spend time thinking about, but I always love thinking about the different styles authors use. For instance, some authors use a lot of similes and adjectives, enough that if their style was to be made a picture it would have all sorts of tiny details crowding into every square inch. There would be vibrant colors and fast moving lines. The author of Fahrenheit 451 has that kind of style.

Bradbury uses a lot of metaphors in his writing. If I am to be honest, the numerous metaphors had me a little confused at times. When Montag is about to read a poem to his wife’s friends, it says “he was all fire,” and “they sat in the middle of an empty dessert (Bradbury 99).” Both of those are in just one sentence. When Montag is thinking back about the machine that pumped out Millie’s stomach, he thinks of it as “a hungry snake (Bradbury 44).” Clarisse’s face is “fragile milk crystal with a soft and constant light in it (Bradbury 7)” The metaphors he uses make the style seem much more dramatic because it puts such a definite image in the reader’s mind.

Bradbury uses a whole lot of adjectives too. For some reason, I really like the way he describes Clarisse after the first time Montag meets her. “It was a look, almost, of pale surprise; the dark eyes were so fixed to the world that no move escaped them. Her dress was white and it whispered. (Bradbury 5).” It almost sounds magical to me. Anyway, my point is that he uses a lot of really good adjectives. When he reads the poetry to Millie’s friends, Bradbury says “Then he began to read in a low, stumbling voice that grew firmer as he progressed from line to line, and his voice went out across the desert, into the whiteness, and around the three sitting women there in the great hot emptiness (Bradbury 99).” That gives such a clear feeling of what the atmosphere in the room was like. I very much like his style of writing.

I thought a few of the ideas in the book made no sense to me, and all of them came from Granger. When Montag is talking to Granger, Granger says Montag is not important, and that the books they were remembering would someday end war (Bradbury 163-164). I do not understand either idea, so I will either reason myself into some understanding of them or otherwise rant about how silly they are. Either way, it should be an interesting post.

I just do not like the idea of anyone telling anyone else that they are unimportant. A person who does not think they are important is rarely a very happy person, and most people are important, or at least should be to themselves. Furthermore, are not the people who remember books the most important people in that situation? If something happened to just one of them, imagine what would be lost. It could be some great work of philosophy that took a lifetime to think through, and that would have really helped a lot of people. I think those people who remember the books are especially important.

I really do not understand what Granger was talking about with books being the end of war in general. Plenty of books promote war, like The Prince, by Machiavelli. That one was specifically mentioned too (Bradbury 152). If any book is ill suited for ending war, it is that one. I suppose Granger believes that the collective thoughts in all of the books, if paid attention to, would reason people out of going to war. I really disagree with that because plenty of people pay attention to books today, and plenty of people take time to think about things, but war is still a fairly common occurrence when you think about it. So now I have come to the conclusion that both of Granger’s statements were wrong, at least in my opinion. That also puts me in the position to say I am not particularly fond of that character based on the ideas he talks about, so I will.

The tone of this book was really quite dark, that is, when I think of my general impression of it. Maybe it is just that reading of dark events gives me the impression that the tone is dark, when it really might not be. I shall now endeavor to prove myself wrong, although this is really the kind of thing one should be proven right on. I am tired and threatening to start a rant, so I am just going to start writing.

After much consideration and random page flipping, I have decided my original premise is right, and this is in fact a gloomy book. It is more that gloomy, and there is also a certain tension in the writing. “The perspiration gathered with the silence and the subaudible trembling around and about and in the women who were burning with tension. Any moment they might hiss a long sputtering hiss and explode (Bradbury 95-96).” I think the sentences feel so tense because they are building toward something about to happen. Just a few pages later: “The room was blazing hot, he was all fire, he was all coldness; they sat in the middle of an empty desert with three chairs and him standing, swaying, and him waiting (Bradbury 99).” I think this sounds tense because of all hotness references.

The tone is really sort of sad when the author is describing Montag or Millie. “He felt his smile slide away, melt, fold over and down on itself like a tallow skin, like the stuff of a fantastic candle burning too long and now collapsing and now blown out (Bradbury 12).” That really is sad, talking about how he no longer felt like smiling. “Her face was like a snow-covered island upon which rain might fall, but it felt no rain; over which clouds might pass their moving shadows, but she felt no shadow.” Also sad, being so disconnected from everything. Most of the time the tone is just as sad.

I found Montag’s relationship with Millie to be pretty interesting. He knows his wife is pretty much a slave to the television, and admits he does not love her, but he shows his books to her (risking his job and his freedom) and tries to make her read them. I also think that it is strange that he felt it was important to remember when they first met although he does not love her.

Montag knows that Millie is mostly empty inside, and knows he does not love her (Bradbury 44). He gets so upset at the realization that he would not cry if she died that he starts crying (Bradbury 44). I think the reason this upsets him is that he very much wants to love Millie. He wants to feel some deep and important emotion for his wife. I think that he shows her the books and has her read them with him for the same reason. He wants to fill the emptiness in her and help her to start thinking about things so he can love her. It really is not possible to love someone without a self, and Montag hopes that giving her things to think about will help her find herself.

When I was reading the book, I started wondering why Montag felt it was so important to remember where he and Millie met. After I wrote that last paragraph, I think I have a better idea of why. People always remember the important things in their lives. The fact that Montag cannot remember meeting Millie is a sort of subconscious admission that Millie is not important to him. Montag very much wants Millie to be important to him, so he feels that it is very important for him to remember when they met. Also, is it not something like a slap in the face when Millie says remembering when they met is not important (Bradbury 43)? I think it is.

I find it a little ironic that a person who thinks as much as Beaty is against books. How can any person intelligent enough to understand why books are burnt want to burn books? I have a couple of theories, and it may be just one of them or both of them put together. It may not have been eithe of them.

My most reasonable theory is that Beaty wanted power over people by keeping them thoughtless. If controlling people is impossible, because you cannot control their thoughts, but if they do not have thoughts they are just like cows waiting to be led around. My first problem with that is that there was nowhere to lead people and nothing they were wanted to do. My other problem with that is that what in the world does a suicidal person want with power? I do not understand it.

My other theory is that Beaty is very, very mean. When he talks about people, the tone is sort of disgusted (Bradbury 61). I think he may like keeping people thoughtless because it makes him feel superior to them. That way, if he is a piece of absolute spitefulness, he can at least feel like he is better than the thoughtless cows. This makes more sense to me, because if he needs to help people stay that stupid to make himself feel better, then it is no wonder he wants to die.

I have to wonder why he hates himself so much. Maybe he hates himself for burning books, because he is smart enough to know how wonderful books are. Because he hates himself for doing that, he keeps burning books to keep people less smart than him so at least he can feel good about that. If that was the case, then that is one messed up man. Perhaps he read an unsavory book that started the process, because I can not imagine why anyone would start burning books.

I find it a little ironic that a person who thinks as much as Beaty is against books. How can any person intelligent enough to understand why books are burnt want to burn books? I have a couple of theories, and it may be just one of them or both of them put together. It may not have been eithe of them.

My most reasonable theory is that Beaty wanted power over people by keeping them thoughtless. If controlling people is impossible, because you cannot control their thoughts, but if they do not have thoughts they are just like cows waiting to be led around. My first problem with that is that there was nowhere to lead people and nothing they were wanted to do. My other problem with that is that what in the world does a suicidal person want with power? I do not understand it.

My other theory is that Beaty is very, very mean. When he talks about people, the tone is sort of disgusted (Bradbury 61). I think he may like keeping people thoughtless because it makes him feel superior to them. That way, if he is a piece of absolute spitefulness, he can at least feel like he is better than the thoughtless cows. This makes more sense to me, because if he needs to help people stay that stupid to make himself feel better, then it is no wonder he wants to die.

I have to wonder why he hates himself so much. Maybe he hates himself for burning books, because he is smart enough to know how wonderful books are. Because he hates himself for doing that, he keeps burning books to keep people less smart than him so at least he can feel good about that. If that was the case, then that is one messed up man. Perhaps he read an unsavory book that started the process, because I can not imagine why anyone would start burning books.

Clarisse is a very interesting character. She seems really out of place among the other characters in the book and in the setting because she is both young and thoughtful. When Millie was talking about how she got hit by a car, I honestly almost cried (by the way, that happened to me a couple time during the book, which is strange because it is not a very large book).

Clarisse is sort of like a breath of fresh air, if I may use that overused statement. The physical setting is not really described, so it seems like the entire place is nothing but concrete and buildings. She points out little things like dandelions and rain, and it makes the setting seem a little less scary more like things are now (Bradbury 21). Of course, that could be taken as making things more frightening because nature is the same but no one notices it. She notices all of the really wonderful things and is a happy wee girl because of it.

Another thing that is important about her is that she thinks about things (Bradbury 23). Apparently that is quite a unique trait in the story. Come to think of it, it is rather unique for anyone to just sit and think about things in normal life. I think that is why I like her character so much. Thoughtful people are pretty rare. She is not very fond of the other people her age, and I can not say I blame her (Bradbury 30). If I was her, I do not think I would ever go to school again, who wants to spend all day with a bunch of carless louts? She is pretty curious as well. She is always looking at and doing something different when Montag passes her on his way home (Bradbury 28). Her curiosity implies that she likes to learn things, because people who like learning are always looking for answers to their questions.

I think the author does believe certain responsibilities exist between groups in society based on the book, although I might be laughed at when I explain what they are. I also think that the author was probably influenced by a great love of great literature, and a desire to protect it from alteration and other such horrible nonsense.

My idea about the responsibilities the author believes in comes from the fact that books started being banned because they offended someone or other here and there (Bradbury 57). I think that perhaps there is a certain responsibility to offend and be offended every once in a while. Offense makes a person stop and think about things sometimes, and a society without disagreements between different groups just is not natural. When people do not fight with each other, something is essentially wrong. It is sad but true. Beyond that, there is a certain responsibility to respect other people’s right to offend you. Freedom of speech being taken away is what really caused some of the more horrible parts of the future in the book, like the long list of banned books (Bradbury 34). Being offended really is not a fun thing, but not being allowed to voice an opinion when it is really important is not much fun either. Of the two, I would think the muzzle would be worse.

I am pretty darn sure that the author wrote this book because he loved books, and wanted to make sure that nothing happened to them in the future. Most people take for granted that they can read whatever they want. A book like this makes a person want to go out and read the most radical book they can find, just because they can. The book makes you realize just how wonderful it is to be able to go out and buy whatever book you want. The author was influenced by his love for books, and his writing about a world without them makes other people realize that they feel the same way.

The author uses a good amount of suspense to keep readers reading. Another reason that people today keep reading it is because the setting is very close to what we might imagine our future to be. A look into a possible future is a very good reason to keep reading a book.

When Montag starts talking to Clarisse, he starts to become a bit of a misfit like her. He starts paying attention to the things she talks to him about (Bradbury 28) and starts to think about the books he burns (Bradbury 33). The fireman side and the side that wants to learn and think can not exist together, and he starts to struggle with it himself (Bradbury 24). There is suspense in wondering which of the two will end up being who Montag is. Eventually the thinking side wins out, and that puts him in conflict with a society that is very dangerous, and has no problem killing those who do not fit in, like the lady who the firemen were about to burn alive before she lit the fire herself (Bradbury 38). Then the suspense is in whether or not Montag will get away.

Another good reason people get hooked to reading the book is that the future Bradbury writes about seems uncomfortably possible, especially today. The way everything has to be done with quickly and how people spend entirely too much time in front of a television is fairly close to daily life in the story, where people just sit in a room made of television screens (Bradbury 20). Do I even have to mention how many people I meet that say they do not like reading, and do it only when they are forced to? Things like that make Bradbury’s future seem more plausible, and make the reader more curious about it. I wonder if that played any part in its popularity when it was written. Did people feel the same way about the future then?

I think we still read Fahrenheit 451 because its message is so important. It reminds people to think about their lives and not to cut things down to make things faster. If people did not have a reminder about things like that, who knows what would happen. Just a thought here, but is it not kind of funny that the author wrote a book about the future destruction of books?

How incredible is it that the author predicted so well what our society would become. How in God’s name did he know that everything would become about doing things quickly, with as little thought involved as possible? He even knew how popular television would become, all the way back in the forties. People think so little today that I have to wonder what the world would be like without this book, maybe people would be even worse off than they are.

When I read this book, it made me think of a world without books, which is a very frightening thought. Besides pointing out problems, the book made me appreciate the books that I have and have read. Books are the way I learn, and the way I meet great people who wrote down their thoughts. If Ayn Rand had not written down what was in her head, I would not be who I am, and I can not imagine what my mind would be like. Books and the ideas convey change those who read them. Whether it is adding them to a list of thing they believe in, or making a decision about an idea being wrong, books help a person shape their mind.

Fahrenheit 451 makes people slow down and think about things and makes people appreciate books much more. It is really amazing to me how close to the future the author came, except for the prediction of nuclear wars and such (Bradbury 73). No wonder this book is still read when it has such a wonderful message.

I was thinking about the social issues the author wrote about in the setting, namely, that there were not any. In the world the author created, people did not think enough to cause problems or create issues with each other. However, they think little enough to create plenty of behavioral issues. For instance, no one values anyone else’s life, and many do not value their own. Besides not valuing them, they often wish to end them.

Clarisse says she is afraid of her classmates because they kill each other, and the rest of them do not seem to mind (Bradbury 30). When people are not thinking about things and noticing things, I do not think they are really alive, if you understand me. Without thought, what makes them different from cows or cats? They do not really live, so it would be difficult to value their lives. One of Millie’s friends says she would not cry if her husband was killed (Bradbury 95). She must not really care about him or value him at all or at least the amount of him that there is. The people that pump out Millie’s stomach and blood do not care that she is a person, they just refer to her attempted suicide as a “problem” (Bradbury 15).

Another behavioral epidemic of the author’s society is suicide and attempts at suicide. Millie attempts suicide at the beginning of the book (Bradbury 13). A husband of one of Millie’s friends jumps off of a roof (Bradbury 94). When people do not think, as I said before, it is like a musician not playing music. They do not do well. Something inside starts dying. Humans were made to think, were built for it. Take that away and something horrible is missing, something people do not want to live without, and they do not even think enough to realize that what they are missing is thought. It is really sad when you think about it.

Montag is the hero in the book. One thing I noticed right away was that he could not stop himself from thinking. Besides that, he is pretty passionate when he believes something, and he gets frustrated easily too.

In the beginning of the book, he complains to himself about his “subconscious idiot that ran babbling at times (Bradbury 11).” What that subconscious was thinking just before that, however, was really quite lovely in my opinion. It if was not for his thoughts, he probably would have ignored Clarisse. Instead, the things she said made him curious, and he asks a whole lot of questions the next time they meet (Bradbury 21). Eventually, his interest in what Clarisse talked about turns into an interest in books (Bradbury 51). Of course, interest presupposes thought. His thoughtful nature is the driving force in the plot, because it puts him in conflict with the thoughtless society.

When Clarisse starts questioning him about being a fireman, after a while he starts laughing (nervously?) and getting defensive (Bradbury 8). He thinks that he very much loves being a fireman, and really does not want to hear anything that may even imply that it is wrong. He also thinks he loves his wife, and objects vehemently when Clarisse teases him about not being (Bradbury 22). When he believes something, he defends it passionately, because he wants to feel passionately about it.

Another thing about Montag does a lot is get frustrated. He really has quite a short fuse. When Clarisse asks him if he is happy, the question frustrates and bothers him (Bradbury 10). When his wife and her friends are watching the television thing, he gets so frustrated with their ignorance that he tries reading them poetry (Bradbury 100). He gets so frustrated that he can not stop himself from doing something stupid like that. He just gets so frustrated all of the time, and he really could not have helped getting found out.

The author understands a good deal about human nature and the trends in society. I could not believe it when I read that it was published in the nineteen fifties. When creating his future of the world, he understood that a lot of the time people do not want to think. He also understood that thinking and the depth that it implies are quite essential to truly happy people.

In his future, people spend all day in front of a television that says absolutely nothing (Bradbury 46). If the complete lack of thoughtful programming today, with shows like Jersey Shore, is anything relatable to what the television of Bradbury’s future, I think I get the picture. People fill their mind with such nothingness as that, and they do not have real time or reason to think. The people of the future block out thoughts with their constant time in front of noise and confusion. When they are confronted with something thought provoking, like the poetry Montag reads to his wife’s friends, they get terribly upset and never come back (Bradbury 101). True, the poem was quite sad, but even sadness is beautiful, not only because the thought required feeling it. Someday, I’m going to write about all of the reasons sadness is beautiful.

The other important thing the author understands is that without thought, people are just unhappy and find no reason for their life (How can they find a reason if they never reason?). Millie tries to commit suicide because of it, and she does not even know that that is the reason why (Bradbury 19). Montag realizes that Beaty wanted to die too (Bradbury 122). A person not thinking is somewhat akin to a musician never paying attention to music. Without music, a musician dies inside, and without thought so do people. The thoughts we have make us who we are, and if we have no thoughts and have no “who”, then what really is the point of living?

In the conflict, it could be said that a lot is lost. I find that that which was lost was very superficial and meaningless. Furthermore, what Montag gained is impossible to be happy without. The conflict is caused not just by firemen, but also by the future society that both allows and supports the firemen.

Montag is made to burn down his own home in the course of the book (Bradbury 116). That is a hard thing for a person to do, but he gets through it. In the same sentence, he loses his job, and is told he will lose his freedom (Bradbury 117). That is a hard thing to be told. His wife calls the firemen on him and leaves him (Bradbury 114). To top things off, he might have lost his life to the mechanical hound that was chasing him through the night (Bradbury 133). Honestly, he lost a house that could never have been a real home, a job that forced him to destroy, and a woman who did not have enough thought to really have a self. The thoughts of a person make a person who they are. As for his becoming an outlaw, and seemingly losing his freedom, he gains the freedom of his mind by being with those who know the value of thought.

When Montag discovers how wonderful books are, he gains the wonder that belongs to a working mind. When Clarisse shows him all of the wonderful things in nature that he never stopped to see, he starts to enjoy himself, and it makes him happy (Bradbury 23). As he was not happy before, his new found happiness is quite a wonderful thing to gain. I find myself using the word wonderful a lot, because I cannot think of a better word to describe the discovery of something so important.

The conflict is caused by a society of people who do not want to think, and therefore do not want the thoughts books inherently translate. It is really horrible to think about any large group of people so inclined. It conjures up the image of a gang of high schoolers to me. Obviously, I think very largely of my peers. Perhaps I will be able to say that without sarcasm in college.

The book is very clear about what the author values, namely, books. But more than books, what the books mean. Books mean thought and opinions, and those things are extremely valuable. Even if differences in opinion do cause people to be upset at times, in the words of my favorite author, “Man’s first frown is the first touch of God on his forehead. The touch of thought.”

The entire book is about the fight to keep books intact and to help show people the books’ value. Books’ value being the thoughts in them, Montag starts to value thought when he talks to Clarisse. Her question about whether or not he is happy makes him think about the answer, and realize that he is not happy (Bradbury 12). A realization such as this must eventually prompt the question of why. When a person starts asking why, a person starts thinking. Even if they never come up with an answer, the question is still thought about. The author must value thought, or else he would not make his main character’s thoughts so important.

The reason books a burnt and outlawed is that they contain opinions, and an opinion is bound to offend someone, no matter what it is (Bradbury 57). It is apparent that the author values the disagreements, because even though he points out that the books disagree with each other, the author still values them ardently. Differing opinions are very important too. If everyone agreed with each other, there would be no reason to argue, and that would take away another reason to think.

The way books are considered precious at the end of the story by the main character makes it pretty clear that the author values books. Montag almost turns back toward a car trying to hit him because he drops a book (Bradbury 127). Montag is about to risk his life to save a book before he even has time to think about it. If that does not show how much the author values books, I do not know what would.